EVE Information Portal

I couldn't help but thinking back to this when they showed the Mooring Structure.
Attack on Scorpion Shipyards

I do not think this challenge is beyond the creativity of the CCP Game Designers and the community to propose, iterate, invent and implement a mechanism so that it is an equal amount of work for an aggressor to place a structure at risk of displacement independent of the corp the player chooses to exist in. The aggressor should, of course, also have a non-trival penalty for failure and inconveniencing the defender.

Maybe it's as simple as wardec'ing the structure - not the corp or individual that owns it or an extension of the duel mechanic or some variation on ganking (because NPC players might want to ransack a structure independent of who owns it too).

If CCP wants everything to be able to be blown up, they will find a way.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that NPC corp members will not be able to use larger structures just like at present. They will likely be limited to the 'small' only structures that shooting only makes you go suspect on. Rather than POS's which generate concord reactions if you shoot without a wardec.

The current system is actually not consistent about the "size" of the item in space. It's actually beyond dumb now that shooting an empty small can (used for advertising for example) that costs 10,000 ISK generates a concord response requiring ~2hrs of suicide ganking and like 10 ships of loss to remove, drop in about 2 points in security standing, and a 30day killright if it's owned by an NPC corp owner (because you can't wardec the NPC corp) and shooting a MTU that costs several million ISK doesn't. If my tiny super cheap can is protected by concord why shouldn't everything more expensive I anchor be?

That scenario can also go on the "should it really work this way?" list as the team looks at anchorable items.

If structures in space are reviewed, the Giant Secure Container (at 3900m3 capacity) could also use big brothers scaling up to say 250,000m3 like the EFC can do because items like the MTU are too small for activities like Ice or Gas mining. The anchored can should hold multiple shiploads to save you flights back to station or POS. Introduction of the Venture with it's 5000m3 ore hold changed the requirements of what is interesting and valuable re: storage in space.

It'd be a big step forward in equality if NPC corp members (or player corp members w/o corp POS admin permissions) could own and use the successor to the small and medium POS on a personal basis in the new system (and have a way to use it solo or share with friends/alts/public) even if large and XL structures require ownership by entities subject to the current wardec mechanics.

They said 'POS Gunners' will be replaced by 'Piloting' the station. So you will be able to look around the whole grid it's on and control all it's modules (Wonder if stations will get local reps). Just as if you were flying your ship on the grid, but instead being a whole 100km station!

As for Entosis module, yea, it becomes a lot more problematic in all the non null spaces, where alliances are a lot lot smaller if that mechanic still exists elsewhere. But also becomes weird if only null stations get entosis'ed while everyone else gets shot.

You still keep your window, just take over piloting the station quickly, or ask the guy who is.
It's not 'quite' as good, I agree, and we can hope that the code for piloting the station allows anyone 'docked' to observe their grid in all areas of space as an ideal solution. But weighed up against all the other benefits that are planned I'll take that slight downside, and yes I have done some POS living even if not as much as you probably have.

I agree the Entosis is about Sov also, just.... CCP are trying to develop consistent and clear mechanics. And it's not that if behaviour changes on security status or area of space. So.... it's a question of which need over-rides, or how to adjust entosis while keeping it clear in other area's of space.
I'm mainly high sec living now due to limited play time and I'm also totally not keen on someone being able to use an entosis link on a 20 man corp anywhere in a four hour time period and wreck stuff as a result. Since no way a small high sec, low sec or WH corp is going to be able to cover time periods like Null alliances will be able to. So I want a method that allows me to clearly defend in a realistic fashion also.

I think this is all very interesting. Few points:

1. Look at who is calling for what. The griefers want their griefing to be bounteous when greifing the carebears, the carebears want to keep their stuff they worked long hrs for - safe.
The time it takes to build up these items, if lost too easily, will break the backs of those who labor. Fighting greifers is all good but keep it balanced. Basically look at the time input. If the time you put into something doesn't equal the reward. People will quit. Simple and true. Yes there should be risk and that balance is what you need to find.

2. So you are going to shut down all nullsec manufacturing while transitioning, have you even considered how this will effect people?

3. This could be cool. Given history though is to push out a product without thorough testing with problems.. hence where we are now. Let this be on sisi for several months, let everyone have ample time to test it before implementing.

4. I lost billions in the last indi improvement in bp research, i expect to loose more. Standard for the course.

5. You are making it harder and harder for small alliances to live out in null sec. Give cap ships the ability to squash small griefers. Capitals need to be addressed before or at least the same time so we know what to expect -at least.

Hmm... I think that the standard CCP answer to this type of question is:

"Players have already gotten value from their investment in the current mechanics, so we will not be reimbursing anyone, due to any upcoming changes."

At least, I recall something like this being said by CCP last year when industrialists with large investment in BPO ME/PE research time lost their very-slight-margin competitive advantages due to the change to the ME10/TE20 system, without getting any form of reimbursement whatsoever.

And, earlier, when CCP added the ore bays to the mining ships, but didn't reimburse for, nor offer to non-destructively remove, the expensive cargo expander rigs that most miners had fitted to their ships.

So, are you asking for "special consideration" for the null-sec alliances? ;)

Just for the record, I'm 100% ok with "special consideration" (even for the Goons... lol). I think that CCP unnecessarily loses a good chunk of player subs, whenever they make these sorts of changes, without reimbursing players' for time/effort spent with the replaced mechanics.

First thoughts:

1: will you be refunding all sp spent on capitals?

2: will you be refunding the ships themselves?

3: can you also set up a but back scheme for dedicated cap pilots?


4: how do you expect anyone to get to the top level station with no method of safely storing enough ships to defend a constellation that long?

5: why have you build a game around one module, the entosis link; where is the diversity or need for a fleet to do multiple things rather than take one cookie cutter fleet to roll a region?

6: blobbing is going to be essential in defence and attack. Given this, the increase in structure count and now possibly thousands of cans.. How will tidi effect a defenders ability to move around a const, getting to defend points when attackers can approach that const free of lag?

7: why have you almost tripled the amount of logistics work an alliance needs to do? We all hate this high level of logistics.

8: given massive increase in cost, how many months of grind would it take an alliance to break even?

9: how do corporations find themselves now? 50%+ tax?

10: how does any of this improve personal player wealth higher than that of level 5 missions or incursions?

11: what will happen to npc space, now considered by many as the best space.

12: how will wormhole capacity size limit the upgrade speed of a wormhole? And if at all will this be by design?

13: why have you taken away the ability to blow stuff up, to compete to be top damage, to train your skills more than the next guy to make sure your dps is best dps

14: why are mooring rigs so damn flimsy? No one will park a cap at them, ever.

15: can we dock titans yet please? We need somewhere to put them whilst trying to get a refund :p

16: given the increase in volitility how will newbros find their way to 0.0?

17: do you expect plex prices to crash?

18. Do you expect alt numbers to crash?

So if you wardec the structure then it would only be logical that the structure and the owner are the only two who can shoot the war targets. Or are you proposing that NPC corps schould be subjected to wardecs, you know, to become more equal and stuff.